W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:47:27 -0500
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Mark Peel" <mpeel@novell.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF34F2ABF6.9EC8DC03-ON85256FB8.00716DE2-85256FB8.007236F7@us.ibm.com>
Jonathan,
  Does:
  an indication in the message whether a reply is expected 
imply that presence of a wsa:ReplyTo means its a two-way message?
I thought that kind of assumption was something the WG was trying to 
avoid. [1]
thanks
-Dug

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0305.html




"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
03/02/2005 03:26 PM

To
"Mark Peel" <mpeel@novell.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to  and  reply 
 to )







I thought this was on the list somewhere but I couldn't find it, so I'll
restate it here.  One benefit we would lose from making wsa:ReplyTo
optional is an indication in the message whether a reply is expected.
An intermediary or proxy might use this information to, for example,
keep a connection open without having a description of the message's MEP
available.  The information content of a specified wsa:ReplyTo and a
default value is different.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Peel
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:08 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut
> to and reply to )
> 
> 
> 
> +1 to Dave's approach.  But as for quoting Ockham's Razor as written,
> I
> feel we have enough cryptic language to deal with already...  Latinum
> est; non potest legi.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark Peel
> Web Services Infrastructure
> Novell, Inc.
> 
> 
> >>> David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 03/02/05 9:43 AM >>>
> I think we're on the same page semantically.  I believe the difference
> 
> is between saying
> 
>     * missing => anonymous => binding-specified
> 
> and
> 
>     * missing => binding specified
> 
> For me the latter wins. /Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
> necessitatem/.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 20:48:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT